Oregon Firearms Federation
PO Box 556
Canby, OR 97013

(503) 263-5830

OFF ALERT 11/09/05 GOOD NEWS......BAD NEWS

Proving that some people are dangerous and stupid to a degree that words cannot describe, voters in San Francisco yesterday banned all handguns within that great center of freedom.

We have heard from people asking if that would be possible in Oregon.

Presently, no. But Oregon's pre-emption law, which would prevent that type of lunacy here, is in statute, not the Constitution. This means that the law could be changed at any time by the legislature. So, it's more important than ever that candidates with some sense of reality get elected.

As you probably know, militant anti-gunners are working overtime to gain control of the Oregon House. This is the only part of government that they don't control now.

The Senate is in their hands and the Governor's mansion has been theirs for years. And they control Oregon's courts.

The upcoming election will be a knock down, drag out for the House. The House Speaker, Karen Minnis is a major target and is vulnerable.

Minnis has been no friend to gun owners since she first came to the Oregon House, replacing her husband John who was also no friend to gun owners.

You may recall that John Minnis left the Senate seat he had moved up to, when he took a job offer from anti-gun Governor Kulongoski.

Karen Minnis, a Republican, has drawn fire from both the right and left and has made plenty of enemies because of her dictatorial style. Because she has almost complete control over assigning committee seats, and because committees have enormous power in the Oregon legislature, she will be a major target this election.

The real danger is that other Republicans, many of whom actually support gun rights, may become targets as well. So please be as active as you can in the upcoming election.

There is some possible good news however.

Senator Ginny Burdick, whose deranged anti-gun ravings have embarrassed even other anti-gun nuts in the Oregon legislature, has announced that she would like to take a more full time job in politics.

Attacking gun rights every two years apparently was not satisfying enough for Burdick, so she is planning a run for Portland City Council where she hopes to join another foaming-at-the-mouth gun hater, Randy Leonard.

This might be seen as bad news for Portland residents, but since things can't get much worse there, it could be a real positive thing for gun owners state wide.

If Burdick does not win the seat she is seeking (Eric Sten's) she remains in the Senate, so if you are a Portland resident and can vote in City Council election, please keep that in mind.

Our Political Action Committee will be doing all it can to support sane candidates, so if you have not already done so, please consider a donation to OFFPAC in time for the tax credit it offers.

If your contribution is made before the end of the year, you get a write off on your 2005 taxes.

OFF ALERT 10/20/05
Wrap Up On New Gun Control Bill.

Note: This alert refers to several e-mail alerts we sent urging our members to oppose S397 and support HR 800. For reasons of space we have not reproduced those e-mails. If you are on our alert list, you should have received them.

Senate Bill 397 has now passed both the US Senate and the House of Representatives.

As you probably know, the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation/ Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, were relentless in their support of this bill. If you receive alerts from these organizations, you know that they were adamant that the bill be passed in the House, in the form it was agreed to in the Senate.

These organizations were determined, for whatever reason, to make sure that the gun control provisions that were added in the Senate were KEPT in the bill and NOT removed.

Gun Owners of America was the only national organization to oppose the bill because of the new gun control provisions included.

If the President signs the bill, which we assume he will, you will now be required to purchase a trigger lock with every handgun you buy.

The supporters of the bill have insisted this is "no big deal." In fact, this is a very big deal and a slap in the face to every responsible gun owner in America.

Let's can the nonsense and be real for just a minute here. Does anyone think that an irresponsible person will suddenly change his ways because a cheap trigger lock came with his gun? Of course not. So what purpose does this part of the law serve?

Well it served to get the NRA to continue to support the bill and demand that the bill be passed with that provision included.

(Please note, in numerous e-mails sent by NRA prior to the vote on S397 in the Senate, they told their members "Your U.S. Senators need to hear directly from you that you consider any votes in support of anti-gun amendments to this legislation as votes against the bill itself." But when the bill passed with anti-gun amendments they insisted that it wasn't a problem and the bill must be passed without removing the anti-gun amendments in the House. When they pushed this bill last time they promised just the opposite, that a bill with anti-gun language would be "cleaned up" in the House.")

There was an alternative bill that DID NOT have that provision, but NRA insisted that their members support the version with gun control in it.  What are the practical ramifications of this?

They are pretty clear. As a result of the lobbying for this bill, the NRA has stated very clearly that trigger locks are not only acceptable, but are a "good idea."

Here's the problem. The bill does not mandate that the trigger locks be used. But there can be no rational reason to promote something if it is not intended to be used. It simply makes no sense.

When Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer, or Diane Feinstein or any of the other anti-gun nuts introduce legislation to make their use mandatory, how exactly will all the "pro-gun" organizations who demanded this law argue against it? The "gun lobby" has signed off on trigger locks, how can they then claim they should not be used?

The bill contains this interesting language:
"(3) LIABILITY FOR USE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action."


So, do you really believe you WON'T be subject civil liability if you DON'T lock up your guns?

There are countless prosecutors out there just dying to hang any rap on gun owners that they can. This provision is an open invitation to do just that.

Let's see what happens if a dealer forgets to sell you what may be an entirely unnecessary lock. The rules about that follow:

"(Sec. 5) Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 - Prohibits the sale, delivery, or transfer by a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of a handgun to any person other than a person with a firearms license unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. Lists exceptions, including for U.S. and state agencies and for law enforcement. Grants immunity from a qualified civil liability action for a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device. Establishes as penalties for violations: (1) license revocation or suspension for up to six months; or (2) a civil penalty of up to $2,500."

Given the NRA's ferocious desire to see "all gun" laws enforced, this is not really a good thing for the dealers they claimed to be trying to help.

No, what we have here is simply more rules, more restrictions and more opportunities for gun owners and dealers to run afoul of the thousands of ridiculous laws that serve no purpose other than to harass us.

Why are the people who claim to be protecting your rights so eager to make these deals?

We now have a Republican controlled House, a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican controlled White House. For all the years the anti-gun Democrats were in charge, we were told, "Elect Republicans and your gun rights will be restored." What happened?

There was a great, clean, gun maker's protection bill in the House, HR 800. But it was not even considered.

We gave them the control they asked for, and now we have more anti-gun rules.

Do you really feel you need the government to tell you have to safely handle guns?

Do you know that the government is exempted from the trigger lock rule? Why is that?

"(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
`(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or
`(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);"

If trigger locks are so important, why does the government exempt its agencies from their acquisition? What magical powers do these people have that you lack?

We have been sold out once again
.
As we stated in a previous e-mail, Joe Waldron, the executive director of Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, is telling people that "politics is compromise."

Who authorized anyone to "compromise" something that belongs to you? Did you make that deal? And exactly what did you agree to give up?

For too long, gun owners have been force fed the line that they have to give something up to keep something else. Why? Rights are rights. Why should you have to give up any of them to keep any others?

When a thief breaks in and steals your TV and your DVD player and you catch him and he offers to simply steal your TV and leave your DVD player, that's not a "compromise."

There is simply NO reason that a clean bill could not have passed except for the demands of the NRA.

The militant anti-gun "Violence Policy Center" had this to say about the success of S 397 and the failure of the clean bill HR 800:

"The bill was not as bad as the gun lobby wanted it to be, however. The bill passed by the House last Congress did not contain the gun control measures included in S. 397: a requirement that gun dealers provide a child safety lock when they sell a handgun; and, a provision requiring a study that may ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition."

So the anti-gun nuts are cheering because the NRA insisted on passing the version with gun control in it. That's just great isn't it?

Note how happy they are about the possibility that the new bill "may ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition."

That's funny, that's exactly what the NRA promised would never happen.

So now we have a new gun law that VPC has found reason to embrace, for all the reasons that the NRA told us we had nothing to worry about.

And as we told you in a previous alert, the fringe anti-gun group "Coalition To Stop Gun Violence" is confident that their lawsuits will go forward anyway. Part of their press release is copied below:

"The only good news is that many lawsuits against the firearms industry are likely to survive despite the NRA's ham-fisted attempt to protect gun sellers from the consequences of their own misconduct. We plan to move forward with our lawsuit against the gun makers and dealers involved in the sale of guns to Buford Furrow, the convicted felon, ex-mental patient, and white supremacist who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish day care center near Los Angeles, and we believe nothing in the new gun industry immunity bill will prevent us from obtaining a judgment against these companies"

Gun owners have been hosed again. And there was not a single reason for it.

The people in control of Congress and the White House were supposed to be pro-gun. But even with all that control they refused to give us a clean bill, and they got tremendous political cover from the people who claim to speak for you.

This is a shame.

A roll call vote on the bill can be seen here.
The bill can be viewed here. (Click on "Bill Number" and type in "S 397")


OFF ALERT 9/08/05
No Jokes. Gun Confiscation Begins In New Orleans.

The New York Times is reporting that the "authorities" are confiscating legally owned firearms in New Orleans.

This link may require registration, so if you cannot see it, let us know and we will send you the story as a PDF.

The top of the story reads as follows:
" NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here."

This is madness. The "authorities" have shown no ability to deal with this crisis and now want to disarm people in a place where dangerous criminals have been freed and packs of thugs wander at will
.
The "authorities" however, are not disarming everyone. The Times goes on to report:
"But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons."

Gun owners have often been accused of being "paranoid." Clearly, their fears have been realized.

And now we are facing the appointment of two new Supreme Court Justices who will be able to have a profound effect on our gun rights for years to come.
Please, don't ignore the lesson from New Orleans. Disasters can happen anywhere. Prepare yourself.

OFF ALERT 07/28/05
ANTI-GUN AMENDMENTS ADDED TO S 397

Today the Senate agreed to add an anti-gun amendment to the gun makers legal protection act being debated.

On a 70 -30 vote, the Senate adopted an amendment that requires that when you purchase a handgun, you MUST purchase a gun lock. If you have already invested in a gun safe, well, tough. Big Brother knows best.

Of course, there is no requirement (yet) that you use the lock, but don't be surprised if that comes in future legislation, or if zealous prosecutors go after gun owners who don't lock up their self defense firearms.

Both Oregon Senators voted in favor of this mindless amendment. (Not a surprise, since Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden have long anti-gun records.)
Another amendment (the Levin amendment), to essentially gut the bill, was set aside.

And many more amendments are being considered. And so the danger grows.

We have gotten numerous reliable reports that the NRA's strategy is to push this bill through no matter how many bad amendments are attached. Calls and e-mails to them have been met with the response that anyone who does not agree with their strategy "doesn't know how things work."

Last time they employed this tactic, the bill was so laden with anti-gun provisions that they had to back off. This time they seem determined to push it in the hopes that it will be "cleaned up" when it gets to the House.

Why they have this belief when it has failed so many times before is anyone's guess, but it's a very dangerous strategy. There is no reason to think that the Senate will concur with any "cleaned up" bill if they would not pass one to begin with.

Please call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-8683 and tell them NOT to accept any anti-gun amendments. Don't let them tell you it will all be "alright later." That tactic has not worked before, and if this good bill turns into a bad bill, now is the time to kill it.

You can make your feelings known to your Senators by using this link:

Please keep the heat on. The potential for this bill turning into an anti-gun nightmare is tremendous.

Senator Bill Frist is the Senate Majority leader. He also wants to be your next President. As such, you don't have to live in his state to be important to him. He has a lot of power, and since Oregon Senators seem determined to load this bill up with bad amendments, it would be wise to make sure Frist hears from you. You can call Senator Frist at (202) 224-3344.

OFF ALERT 7/26/05
DANGEROUS AMENDMENTS COMING TO FEDERAL BILL.

While the Oregon Legislature appears to be slowly winding down, there is trouble afoot in Washington D.C.

As you know, if you've been getting our alerts for anytime, last year the US Senate introduced a bill that would protect gun makers and sellers from meritless lawsuits. As you also know, the bill turned into an anti-gun nightmare that had to be stopped.

Along with our friends from pro-gun groups across the country, and with your tireless efforts, we were able to kill it.

Until the very last minute, the NRA supported the bill and promised that, in spite of the terrible anti-gun amendments added to it, they were confident that it could be "cleaned up" when it was sent to the House.

At the time we warned you that it would be a fatal strategy to accept passage of the gun makers protection law if it included anti-gun language.
We felt that was a dangerous approach that had failed many times in the past. In the end, because of your input, the NRA backed off this dangerous policy and agreed that the bill had to be killed, but not before they and others ridiculed our position.

Well, it may be deja-vu all over again.

Another bill (S 397) to protect gun makers is due to be dealt with in the Senate any day, and sources on Capitol Hill have informed us that the NRA is prepared to accept anti-gun amendments in the Senate in hopes of having them stripped out in the House, in spite of recent NRA alerts opposing anti-gun amendments.
For more on this please see a recent GOA alert.

Urge Senator Bill Frist to do whatever it takes to keep anti-gun amendments off of the gun makers' protection act. Ask him to use ANY and ALL of the parliamentary maneuvers that he has at his disposal to keep anti-gun zealots from attaching amendments to S. 397.
You can call Senator Frist at (202) 224-3344, or go here and select "Contact Senator Frist" under the "About Senator Frist" heading to send a message similar to the one below.

Dear Senator Frist:
I have been informed that anti-gun militants intend to offer gun control amendments to the gun makers' protection act, S. 397. I want you to know that the minimal gains this legislation will give us should NOT be accepted in exchange for any additional gun control.
I have no confidence that gun control language will be taken out of the bill in a conference committee. Those are the same kinds of failed promises that I have heard in years past when we got stuck with the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban in 1994 and the McCain-Feingold free speech restrictions in 2002.
Instead, I would encourage you to use the SAME SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY that you used last year to keep gun control off of the class action lawsuit bill. I would urge you to use any and all parliamentary tools at your disposal to prevent this amendment from being offered to the gun makers' protection act.

Sincerely,

Once again, we cannot allow this well intentioned bill to become a vehicle for the militant anti-gun forces.
Stay tuned.

OFF ALERT 07/11/05

GUN TAX INCREASE SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
Senate Bill 954, a 30% increase in the tax you must pay to purchase a firearm in Oregon has been sent back to the Budget Committee.

Saying only "needs more work'' the bill's carrier, Senator Richard Devlin made the motion to return the bill to committee.

This is good news and proof that your voices have been heard.

The only other comment on the motion to send the bill back was from Senator Ted Ferrioli who said that he would not be surprised if the bill was "worked to death" when it returned to the Budget Committee.

We are now in the pressure cooker segment of the session where budgets are battled out behind closed doors, out of view of you and us. So rest assured, we will be staying vigilant, as should you. But for right now, the tax increase has been dealt a serious blow.

Don't relax, but do pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Thanks for keeping up the pressure and we will keep you informed.

OFF ALERT 07/08/05
GUN TAX BILL DELAYED AGAIN!
After a lengthy morning session in which the Oregon Senate opened with a rendition of "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" by Senator Margaret Carter, (no we are not kidding) and passed a bill supporting a "virtual" gay marriage, they returned this afternoon to address long overdue budget issues.

Senate Bill 954, the gun buyers' tax increase, was moved off the schedule once again today at 3:30 PM.

Its carrier, Senator Richard Devlin asked for "more time" to consider the bill.

Your calls and e-mails are working!

There is only one reason this bill has been delayed twice. The anti-gun Senators don't think they have the votes to pass it.

Now is the time to run up the heat.

Please contact your Senator and tell them to vote NO on new and unjustified taxes on gun owners.

Your Senators can be found here just put in your address and all your Reps will be listed.

Remember your STATE Senator is the fourth person listed, after US Senators and your Congressman.

You can e-mail with the simple message NO ON 954, or call anytime over the weekend and leave a message at their office with the same message.

You are doing a great job and your voices are being heard. PLEASE don't let up now.

Your calls and e-mails are especially important if your Oregon State Senator is a Democrat.

OFF ALERT 07/07/05
GUN TAX VOTE POSTPONED PLEASE ACT NOW!
The vote on SB 954, the gun buyers' tax increase was postponed on the Senate floor late today.

Anti-gun Senator Bill Morrisette (D-Springfield) was off the floor for unexplained medical reasons and it was his absence that was given as the reason for postponing the vote.

The only conclusion we can draw from today's actions is that the Democratic Senate leadership is afraid they don't have the votes to pass the fee increase for gun owners.

The vote is scheduled for tomorrow. PLEASE take a minute to contact the following Senate Democrats and urge them to vote NO on SB 954:

Senator Alan C Bates
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1703
Email: <sen.alanbates@state.or.us>

Senator Betsy Johnson
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1716
Email: <sen.betsyjohnson@state.or.us>

Senator Floyd Prozanski
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
Email: <sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us>

Senator Joanne Verger
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1705
Email: <sen.joanneverger@state.or.us>

Time is short, a brief phone call (even to an answering machine) or an e-mail with the simple message "NO ON 954" is all we need.
This will be a squeaker, but there is clearly some concern on the part of the Senate Democrats that they are in a tight situation. Your calls and e-mails TONIGHT can make the difference.

OFF ALERT 07/06/05
GUN TAX INCREASE COMING
We have been reliably informed that the Oregon Senate plans to "suspend the rules" and vote tomorrow on SB 954.

As you know from previous alerts (see below), this bill raises the tax on gun purchases 30%.

Oregon charges gun buyers a fee every time they purchase a firearm from a dealer to pay for the Oregon State Police to run "background checks" and database gun buyers.

SB 954 will raise that fee from $10.00 to $13.00.

There is still time to contact your Oregon State Senator with the simple message "NO MORE FEES FOR GUN BUYERS"

Right now, the background check can be conducted FOR FREE by the FBI who are also forbidden from keeping records on gun owners, but the State Police want to run these investigations and are now asking you to pay even more for them.

Please contact your Senator and tell them NO on SB 954
.
Your state Senator can be found here.
Your Senator will be the fourth person listed.

OFF ALERT 07/02/05
COMMITTEE APPROVES FEE HIKES
Increases in the fees you will be forced to pay for a gun purchase background check were approved yesterday in the full Senate Budget Committee. (SB 954)
The cost for a background check will rise 30% should this bill pass both Houses and become law.

The only objection to the passage in the committee came from Senator Frank Morse, although Senator Betsy Johnson reserved the right to vote no on the floor, based on the fact that the bills were brought before the committee with virtually no time for members to review them.

Please contact your own State Senator and urge them to vote no on any bill that attempts to balance the State Police budget on the backs of gun owners.
Remind them that the State Police are the people who want to do the background checks and that these intrusive checks can be done FOR FREE by the FBI as they are in many other states. (Without the dangerous 5 year retention of records that the State Police now insist on.)

You can locate you State Senator here.

Your Oregon State Senator will be the 4th person listed.
The members of the committee that passed SB 954 yesterday are:
Kurt Schrader, Chair
Margaret Carter, Vice-Chair
Alan C Bates
Richard Devlin
Avel Gordly
Betsy Johnson
Frank Morse
David Nelson
Ben Westlund
Jackie Winters


OFF ALERT 06/29/05
GUN OWNER FEE BILL MOVES TO FULL COMMITTEE

Senate Bill 954, the bill we warned you about you about yesterday, passed out of a Senate Budget Subcommittee today.

This bill, which included major fee increases for gun buyers and persons applying for concealed handgun licenses, now moves to the full Senate Budget Committee.

The Subcommittee is comprised of 3 members, two Democrats, Avel Gordly and Richard Devlin, and one Republican, Jackie Winters.
Winters was not present today, so the the bill moved out with just the votes of the two anti-gun Democrats.

At the time the bill was voted on and approved in Subcommittee, "conceptual amendments" had been added. These "conceptual amendments" would eliminate the fee increase for concealed handgun license applicants and increase the fees for gun purchase background checks from $10.00 to $13.00.
This is, obviously, a lot less than the original bill called for, so your calls and e-mails are having an effect.

However, ANY increase in fees for gun purchase background checks is totally unwarranted. The State Police are saying they need the added money to pay the cost of doing the background checks. But just two days ago we were being told that they would need at least $25.00 to cover the costs. Now we are being told they can cover their costs with a $13.00 charge.

Of course, they are the ones who WANT to do the background checks. The FBI will do it for free as the do in many other states. Our position is that any increase in a fee we should not have to pay in the first place is unacceptable.

As we said, the bill now moves to the full Budget Committee. The members of that committee are

:Kurt Schrader, Chair 503-986-1720 <sen.kurtschrader@state.or.us>

Margaret Carter, Vice-Chair 503-986-1722 <sen.margaretcarter@state.or.us>

Alan C Bates 503-986-1703 <sen.alanbates@state.or.us>

Richard Devlin 503-986-1719 <sen.richarddevlin@state.or.us >

Avel Gordly 503-986-1723 : <sen.avelgordly@state.or.us>

Betsy Johnson 503-986-1716 : <sen.betsyjohnson@state.or.us>

Frank Morse 503-986-1708 <sen.frankmorse@state.or.us>

David Nelson 503-986-1729 : <sen.davidnelson@state.or.us>

Ben Westlund 503-986-1727 <sen.benwestlund@state.or.us>

Jackie Winters 503-986-1710 <sen.jackiewinters@state.or.us>

Please contact these Senators and remind them that the fee increase is not justified and the background check to which gun buyers are subjected can be done for FREE right now. (Without 5 years of record retention.)


OFF ALERT 06/28/05
Senate Pushing Big Fee Increases For Gun Owners.

A bill which will dramatically increase fees for firearms purchase background checks and fingerprinting for concealed handgun licenses is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow(Wednesday June 29th) at 1pm.

The "Public Safety Subcommittee" of the Senate Budget committee will be holding hearings on Senate Bill 954.

This bill would raise the fees you must pay for a firearms background check 150% and raise the fees for CHL fingerprints from $15.00 to $22.00, an almost 50% increase.

The Senate is hoping to increase funding for the State Police on the backs of gun owners who never asked for, or wanted, the "services" the State Police are "providing."

Not only does the Senate demand that you subject yourself to invasive checks simply to exercise a "right," but it also wants to increase the fees for these checks exorbitantly.

There is NO justification for this outrageous price gouging.

Please contact the members of the subcommittee as soon as possible and tell them to vote NO on any fee increases for gun owners.
Sub Committee Membership:
Senator Avel Gordly, Chair Phone: 503-986-1723 Email: <sen.avelgordly@state.or.us>
Senator Richard Devlin Phone: 503-986-1719 Email: <sen.richarddevlin@state.or.us>
Senator Jackie Winters Phone 503-986-1710 Email: <sen.jackiewinters@state.or.us>

Sample e-mail follows:

Dear Senator,
I strongly urge you to vote against ANY bill that includes fee increases for gun owners. The "service" provided by the State Police is not one gun owners have asked for or desire.
Please don't use these gun owners as a funding mechanism for government.
Very truly yours,

__________________

Please also contact Representative Wayne Scott and tell him to kill SB 954 should it be passed from the Senate to the House.
Representative Wayne Scott
Phone: 503-986-1400
Email: <rep.waynescott@state.or.us>

OFF ALERT 06/10/05
GUNS IN SCHOOL BAN, ONE MORE TIME.

Demonstrating the single minded obsessiveness for which she has become so famous, Senator Ginny Burdick has introduced one more ban on licensed concealed handguns in schools.

As you know, her most recent attempt was Senate Bill 956. This bill was voted down in her own committee (Senate Judiciary) on April 21st.
Even anti-gun Senator Floyd Prozanski voted against this bill, apparently out of fear of the damage it would do to rural Democrats if it was voted on.

After that vote, Burdick attacked Prozanski in the press, and now she has introduced one more version of the "no protection for children" bill that has become her only reason to live. The bill is SB 1078.

It combines a ban on concealed carry in schools and on school buses, along with the "lock up your self defense" language Burdick and other anti-rights extremists have long sought.

In order to avoid another embarrassment like the failure of her last anti-gun bill, we have been informed that this bill will not be heard in her committee (which includes Prozanski) but will go to the Rules Committee. This has not been officially posted yet, and if it changes we will let you know. (Since this alert went out we have confirmed the referral to Rules.)

The cosponsors of this bill are a veritable who's who of gun grabbers.
They are:

Senator Ginny Burdick
503-986-1718

Senator Ryan Deckert
503-986-1714

Senator Avel Gordley
503-986-1723

Senator Rick Metsger
503-986-1726

Senator Bill Morrisette
503-986-1706

Senator Charlie Ringo
503-986-1717

Senator Frank Shields
503-986-1724

Senator Vicki Walker.
503-986-1707

The Rules Committee is run by ultra liberal, anti-gun Kate Brown (503-986-1700)

Two of the sponsors of this bill are on the committee as well, Charlie Ringo and Frank Shields.

There are two pro-gun Senators on the Committee, Ted Ferrioli (503-986-1950) and Jason Atkinson. (503-986-1702)

They will not have the votes to kill this bill should Brown decide to hear it.

This bill was introduced this morning and has already gotten a Committee assignment by Senate President Peter Courtney, who is clearly trying to fast track it.


OFF ALERT 05/27/05

In a recent alert we told you about the national ID card that will soon be required.

Some Republican members of the Oregon Senate seem determined to fast track this dangerous legislation by implementing enabling laws.

Senate Bill 640 will require you to give "biometric" data to the Department of Transportation before being allowed to get a driver's license.

Two forms of "biometric data" will be required, but the bill does not specify what they must be, it only defines them as "measurements of physical characteristics that are unique to an individual and that can be used to authenticate the identity of an individual."

Proponents of this legislation are claiming that this bill is needed to combat identity theft and illegal immigration, but it may very well do the exact opposite.

Imagine if this added personal information is stolen or otherwise compromised from within the Department of Transportation.

Numerous incidents have occurred recently involving the loss of thousands of pieces of personal data by banks and other organizations that collect this information. This new "big brother" step is far more chilling. The answer to identity theft should not be forcing American citizens to be treated like cattle.

Calls to the legislature to find out exactly what "biometric data" would be required yielded no answers. What they have in mind beyond fingerprints is anyone's guess.

Senate Bill 640's creepy Orwellian overtones are obvious.

This bill has already passed out of the Transportation Committee and is now in the Rules Committee.

Please consider contacting Senator Kate Brown who chairs the Rules Committee and telling her that databasing Americans is not the solution to crime.

Brown can be reached by phone at 503-986-1700 and by e-mail at sen.katebrown@state.or.us.

You can also contact all legislators by using Senator Gary George's automailer.

Senator George is usually a strong supporter of individual rights and freedoms, however he is a cosponsor of this bill. He and others need to know that more centralized data is a danger, not a solution to danger.

OFF ALERT 05/25/05
HB 2768 "RECONSIDERED"

Thanks to the many of you who made your voices heard, House Bill 2768 was "reconsidered" today and returned to committee.

As you know, HB 2768 started life as a bill that would have allowed persons with CHL's to purchase firearms without a background check.
As of the time this alert is being written, the Legislative Website still shows the bill in its original form.

However, in the House Judiciary Committee, the bill was "gut and stuffed" with entirely different language and the original language was deleted.

After numerous meetings with the Sheriffs and others, we did manage to include language that would allow military personnel to renew CHL's by mail, but in the end there were too many provisions that would have been dangerous to gun owners and we made our opposition clear.

The Sheriff had hoped to use this bill as a vehicle to give them more power to revoke or deny CHL's, and some of the language they insisted on including was simply too vague and open to abuse to be agreed to
.
We hear regularly from people who have had bad experiences with misinterpretations of the law in its current form. Expanding the Sheriff's power without safeguards made no sense.

Although we expressed our opposition, and were made assurances that our concerns would be addressed, the bill passed out of Committee Friday.
Since then, you have done a magnificent job of being heard in Salem, and today the full House Judiciary Committee voted to reverse their earlier vote on the bill.

This action by the full Committee was the only way to keep the bill from moving forward.

As of now, the bill will NOT be going to the House floor for a vote of the full House. This means that (as of now) it will also not get into the hands of gun hater Ginny Burdick on the Senate side.

The vote DOES NOT MEAN the bill is dead. So please stay tuned for new developments, but for now, your efforts have stopped it in its tracks and the bill is back in Committee, where we hope it will die.

Your commitment to grass roots activism has once again protected gun rights in Oregon. Thank you.

OFF ALERT 5/20/05
BAD NEWS FOR GUN OWNERS....AND IT CAME FROM OUR "FRIENDS."

In a previous alert, we warned you that a good gun bill, HB 2768 might morph into a bad bill. It did.

HB 2768, which was supposed to allow CHL holders to purchase firearms without a background check was "gut and stuffed" with language the Oregon Sheriffs wanted to make it easier to deny and revoke handgun licenses. All the good language was removed. (The new language is not yet available on the legislative website.)

Yesterday, that bill was heard in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Law.

Both OFF and the NRA expressed opposition to elements of the bill. We were told that new amendments would be drafted and attached to the bill in full committee. Both OFF and NRA stated that until we saw the amendments, we opposed the bill.

After repeated assurances that the amendments would satisfy our concerns, the bill was voted to the full committee. (Over our opposition.)

The bill was scheduled to be heard in full committee today, however, the Chairman of the full committee assured us that under no circumstances would the bill be dealt with today and would be held over until we had an opportunity to see the amendments.

Based on those assurances, no representative of the gun lobby was present at the "work session" today.

Today, in spite of promises to the contrary, the bill was voted on and passed out of committee with no opportunity for us to see, or comment on, the new language. Keep in mind, the House Judiciary Committee was the one that was supposed to be friendly to gun owners. So now, in spite of months of promises that no bill of this type would get to the House floor if opposed by the gun lobby, the rug was pulled out from under us and the bill was passed out of Committee.

In our conversations with members of the committee we were told that all this was the fault of a committee staffer who told the Chair of the Committee that the "gun lobby" supported the amendments. This of course was nonsense since none of us even had copies of the amendments until moments before the hearing was due to begin.

Whether the staffer misinformed the Chair or not is beside the point. He (Representative Wayne Krieger) had said in no uncertain terms that the bill WOULD NOT be voted on today.

Oddly, while the gun lobby was told the bill would not move and as such did not attend the hearing, the Sheriffs DID have a representative there.

The staffer who told the Chair that the gun lobby "approved" of amendments we had never seen, has now asked us to please allow the bill to proceed to the House floor and promised that any problems with the bill will be addressed in the Senate!

This is absurd. If the bill gets to the Senate, it will be assigned to anti-gun fanatic Ginny Burdick. Obviously, Burdick will not be doing anything to benefit gun owners.

We have made it clear to the staffer and the committee members that we will absolutely oppose this bill. While fingers are being pointed in Salem, we have been told that the bill will NOT go to the House floor. This however requires some special procedures since it HAS been voted out of committee. We are assuming NOTHING at this point.

Although we've been told the bill will be held until we have an opportunity to weigh in on it, we were also told that it WOULD not be voted on today, and that turned out to be untrue.

If this bill gets to the House floor and on to the Senate, a bad bill could turn into a nightmare bill.

Please contact the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and tell him to do whatever it takes to stop HB 2768.His contact info and a sample message follows:
Representative Wayne Krieger
503-986-1401
<rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us>

Dear Representative Krieger,

HB 2768 moved out of your committee in spite of your assurances that it would not.

There is no reason to believe that problems with the bill that were not corrected in your committee will be addressed when the bill is in the hands of Ginny Burdick, whose animosity towards gun owners is well known.

I urge you to do whatever you must to make sure this bill is pulled off the House floor. Please keep your promise to gun owners.

Very truly yours,

________________________________________________________

OFF ALERT 05/16/05

GOOD BILLS GONE BAD.

In an alert dated 05/15/05 we informed you that HB 2768 was due for a hearing on Tuesday. This is a bill that would have allowed persons with concealed handgun licenses to purchase firearms without a background check.

The bill is now scheduled for Thursday instead, and it would appear that it will be "gut and stuffed" with numerous anti-gun provisions. It is very likely that no pro-gun language will survive when this bill is "worked on" in committee. So what started out as a pro-gun bill will now be an anti-gun bill.

The new language, expected to be inserted, is a wish list from the Sheriffs who want to make it easier to revoke or refuse to issue CHL's. In several meetings we have had with the Sheriffs, we made it clear that there are elements which are not acceptable.

The new language will deny CHL's to persons who use illegal drugs. The problem is, it DOES NOT require that a person have any criminal conviction. The proposed language is as follows:

(k) Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in ORS 475.005. For purposes of this section, a person is an unlawful user of controlled substances if there are two or more documented incidents involving the person’s use of illegal drugs or admitted addition within the last four years or the person has completed a court-supervised drug diversion program within the last four years;

A "documented incident" is anything the police want it to be. This language is dangerously vague. If a person makes an accusation and a police officer writes it down, that could be a "documented incident."

People must not be denied rights in the absence of a criminal conviction.

The new language also allows your license to be revoked for a single incident that is interpreted as a "threat of violence." Once again, this language is dangerously vague and moves us back to the time when Sheriffs had dictatorial control over CHL's. The current law requires a more objective reason for denying or revoking a license.

There are other elements in the proposed language which are potential trouble for gun owners, and while there are some proposed changes that are intended to appear as though they benefit active duty military, they simply complicate matters.

The only real benefit to active duty military is a "renew by mail" which the legislature has so far refused to consider.

Both the schedule and the language of this bill are still subject to many changes. You can check the schedule here.

Look under House Judiciary, Criminal Law Subcommittee.

Please contact the chair of the Committee and ask that no pro-gun bill be "gut and stuffed."
The Chair is Representative Jeff Barker, 503-986-1428.

OFF ALERT 5/15/05

TWO GUN BILLS TO BE HEARD TUESDAY, ONE GOOD, ONE VERY BAD.

House Bill 2768 and Senate Bill 954 are both scheduled for work sessions on this Tuesday, May 17th.

HB 2768 will allow persons who have concealed handgun licenses to purchase firearms without background checks.

This bill will be heard in the Criminal Law Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee at 8:30 am.

We fully expect law enforcement to oppose this bill.

Senate Bill 954 will be dealt with in the Joint Ways and Means Committee which meets at 2:45 pm.
This bill dramatically increases fees for CHL fingerprints and background checks for gun transfers.


It increases the fingerprint fee from $15.00 to $22.00. This represents an increase of almost 50%. It increases background check fees 150% from $10.00 to $25.00.

This is an amazing and outrageous proposal and in no way represents any added expenses on the part of law enforcement. It is nothing more than an attempt to boost law enforcement revenue on the backs of (and the wallets of) gun owners.

It is crucial that you immediately contact the chairs and vice chairs of the Ways and Means Committee and tell them NO to any fee increases for gun owners.
Contact info for the chairs and vice chairs follows:

Sen. Kurt Schrader, Co-Chair 503-986-1720
Rep. Wayne Scott, Co-Chair 503-986-1400
Sen. Margaret Carter, Vice-Chair 503-986-1722
Rep. Susan Morgan, Vice-Chair 503-986-1402

OFF ALERT 5/12/05

NATIONAL ID CARD COMING SOON

In a move that was all but ignored by the mainstream media, the US Congress has passed a bill requiring American citizens to obtain national ID cards.

The only member of Oregon's Congressional Delegation to vote against this bill was Congressman Earl Blumenauer. Every other Congressman and both Oregon Senators voted in favor of this unconstitutional attack on your privacy.

If the President signs this bill, which he has indicated he will, your current drivers license will soon be obsolete. Biometric data will be stored on your new license and it will be much harder to get a license in the first place.

If, as assumed, the new licenses contain RFID chips, personal information about you could be read by someone, without your knowledge, simply because you got in proximity of a reading device.

While this new invasion of your privacy has been promoted as a way to battle terrorism, as Congressman Ron Paul has recently written "Terrorism is the excuse given for virtually every new power grab by the federal government, and the national ID is no exception. But federal agencies have tried to create a national ID for years, long before the 9/11 attacks."

The fact is, neither terrorists nor illegal aliens will be affected by this law. They are by nature law breakers, and driving without a license will be way down on their list of concerns.

However, without the new ID cards, American citizens will not be able to get a job, open a bank account, board a plane or Amtrak or enter a Federal Building.

The solution to the problems of criminals invading our country is not to put Americans in a virtual cage. One vast, central database with every bit of information on every single American is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Not only will it greatly expand the potential for identity theft, but the danger of government abuse (especially to gun owners) was proven when Hillary Clinton got her hands on private FBI files of her opponents.

You can rest assured that when this ID card is available, you will not be able to purchase a firearm without one.

Please urge your Congressman and both Senators to reconsider this dangerous and counterproductive attack on your rights.
Your legislators can be reached through GOA's legislative action center:

OFF ALERT 05/10/05
GUN DEALER AND MANUFACTURERS PROTECTION BILL PASSES OUT OF HOUSE.

A bill to protect manufacturers and dealers of firearms and ammunition from frivolous lawsuits has passed out of the Oregon House.
HB 2373 passed by 39 to 17.

The arguments in opposition were, typically, unrelated to the reality of the bill.

Several anti-gun legislators repeated that no other industry was getting any protection from this bill, while ignoring the fact that other industries have not been the target of politically motivated anti-rights extremists.

Oddly, Representative Greg Macpherson argued against the bill by stating that when he drives down the street, he is responsible for what he does with his car.

Strangely, this was why he supported people being able to sue gun makers for the actions of criminals.

Listeners were, no doubt, baffled by attorney Macpherson's reasoning. The whole point of the bill was to make the person who participated in the action responsible, not the company that made the tool the person used in the act. Macpherson's argument made no sense at all, since he never said that car dealers should be held responsible, only the driver. How this related to the bill is anyone's guess.

You can hear some of Macpherson's comments in MP3 format here . If they make sense to you, you understand politicians better than we do.

The bill now moves to the Senate. The Senate, as you know, is under the control of anti-gun radicals. This bill will face an uphill climb at best.

Meanwhile, efforts are under way to make major changes to the concealed handgun license law. Because it is late in the session, this means that an existing bill must be gutted, and stuffed with new language.

What we've seen so far is not good. The proposed changes provide no benefits for law abiding gun owners. Included in the proposed changes is language intended to placate gun owners by allowing active duty military personnel to keep using an expired license for 90 days after they return from out of state deployment.

This is a totally unworkable approach for a wide variety of practical reasons. But the anti-gun Senate leadership refuses to allow a simple renew by mail for military such as the one introduced at our request.

We will let you know immediately if there are any developments on this front.

OFF ALERT 04/29/05
Gun owners got a quiet, but important, victory today, when HB 2892 was reconsidered.

HB 2892 expanded the powers of the Port of Portland Police. The problem is, the Port of Portland Police are enforcing an ordinance that violates Oregon law and attacks law abiding gun owners.

This bill had passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, but after lawmakers were alerted to the actions of the Port, the bill was brought back to committee and the vote to send it to the House floor was "reconsidered."

This means that the bill starts the process again and may very well die in committee.

For the whole story on why we oppose the bill click here.

We sent this information to legislators after the bill passed out of committee and we're pleased that the members of the Judiciary committee chose to bring the bill back from the House floor.

Too many bureaucrats are making up their own rules (schools being a perfect example) and we are pleased that the members of the committee were willing to revisit this issue.

The committee voted unanimously to return this bill to the committee.

Special thanks go to the Chairman of the committee, Wayne Krieger, for his leadership on getting this bill off the floor and Representative Jeff Barker for rethinking a bill he sponsored.

We will continue to watch this bill but are pleased that the committee took the action it did. The committee members are listed below:
Wayne Krieger, Chair
Greg Macpherson, Vice-Chair
Andy Olson, Vice-Chair
Robert Ackerman
Jeff Barker
Linda Flores
Bill Garrard
Kim Thatcher
Kelley Wirth

Thank you to everyone who has contacted Senate President Peter Courtney about Senate Bill 793, the bill that would allow active duty military personnel to renew concealed handgun licenses by mail
.
As you can see, the Senate continues to boast about what it is doing for Oregonians in the military, but refuses to hear this no cost, common sense measure.

This is a disgraceful and transparent partisan slap at military gun owners. Whatever the outcome of this bill, it will become clear who really supports the men and women who serve in the armed forces and who is more interested in lip service with no action.

OFF ALERT 4/22/05 SB 956 VOTED DOWN.

Senate Bill 956 was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

This was another attempt by Ginny Burdick to attack the rights of gun owners. In this case, any concealed handgun licensee who had a reason to be at a public school.

Had Burdick been successful, a license holder who was on public school property with a firearm could be convicted of a felony.

The hearing was scheduled for 1pm, but started late as the Senate Democrats held a meeting in the hearing room. It was clear that the participants were not happy. When they finally emerged to a crowd of people waiting to enter the hearing, anti-gun militant and Senate Majority Leader, Kate Brown looked visibly shaken.

Apparently, there were lots of displeased Democrats. And Burdick's bill was, no doubt, the source of their discontent
.
The first witnesses were Jim Green from the Oregon School Board Association and Mark Chism from Tigard-Tualatin School Board.

Chism ( who shared that his grandfather had "sportsterized" a 30-06) actually said that a teacher who had an abusive ex-spouse and feared for her life should give up her employment rather than have a defensive firearm available.

He invoked images of "blazing gun battles in schools" preferring, it would seem, that the only shooting being done should come from a murderer while staff and children remain defenseless.

Green repeated the Oregon School Board's position in support of this bill while admitting that many of their members disagreed with it.

Senator Bill Morrisette , whose district includes Thurston High School, testified that he did not even want POLICE to have guns in schools and could not imagine why a police office would have a firearm in a school. This may have been the most inane and baffling testimony heard all day.

The Oregon Education Association sent Laurie Wimmer to voice their support for disarming their members.

Now, it is clear that teachers in Oregon have a widely diverse set of political beliefs. In fact, Wendy Coombs, who is a teacher herself, came to testify AGAINST the bill. But the union that represents teachers is absolutely consistent in their politics. They are always far to the left on any issue, and this bill was no exception.

It is ironic, that the same group that regularly demands more money because of the high quality of the work their members do, considers those same members incapable of handling a firearm safely, even when their lives may be at risk.

Oregon teachers are presumed to be able to care for the safety and well being of children, along with their education, but they are too incompetent to protect themselves or those same children from violent attack.

OEA members who believe in their rights have some dues money coming back.

Gun owners traveled from as far away as Douglas County to attend this hearing, and their testimony was uniformly excellent.

The testimony from the supporters of the bill was the now familiar (and totally discredited) litany of "what if's" without one shred of evidence that their nightmare scenarios could ever come true.

In fact, it was exactly like listening to the nonsense we heard when concealed handgun licenses became widely available.

Angry motorists were going to be shooting each other over parking spaces, any perceived slight would end in gunfire.

It was all fantasy and all false and all repeated at this hearing. But in this case it was even more ludicrous because we've had years of CHL's in schools without a single problem.

When the vote was held, all the Committee Republicans voted "no" as did Democrat Floyd Prozanski.

Prozanski is an outspoken opponent of gun rights and has introduced plenty of anti-gun bills himself. So you might wonder why he voted the way he did.

The answer may well be that the Senate Democrats are getting as tired of Burdick's shenanigans as are the rest of us. According to today's Statesman Journal "Prozanski said that he doesn't object to the intent of the bill but that he wanted to avoid a 'fractious debate' in the Democratic caucus."

Senators Vicki Walker, Charlie Ringo and of course, Ginny Burdick voted in favor of the bill. When the vote failed by a 4 to 3 margin, Burdick switched her vote from yes to no. By doing this, she was on the prevailing side and could ask that the bill be heard again.

Whether this will happen remains to be seen. But right now, even Prozanski is admitting that the votes are not there to pass it in the Senate.

This means one thing. Your input is working.

The Senate is now solidly in the hands of anti-gunners. But your activism has put them on notice. And while they still seem determined to kill any bill that would benefit gun owners, (like our military renew-by-mail bill) they are equally determined to stay in office. For now, that would seem to mean not stomping on the rights of gun owners.

There are still plenty of other issues to be dealt with. For example, yesterday the House Judiciary Committee passed out HB 2892.

This bill seemed innocuous enough. It extended the police powers of the Port of Portland Police beyond the areas they usually patrol. The problem is, the Port of Portland Police have a long standing policy of ignoring state law and enforcing their own rules on concealed carry, even after they were informed that th